To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security

American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security

(Not printed at Government expense)
United States of America
Congressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
American Foreign Policy—International
Organization for World Security
SPEECH OF HON. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT
OF ARKANSAS
IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES
Wednesday, March 28, 1945
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
myths are one of the greatest obstacles
in the formulation of national policy. A
myth of some plausibility is being currently
revived at the expenses of this
Senate. The Senate is being held solely
responsible for the failure of the United
States to join the League of Nations.
This myth is a half-truth, and a very
dangerous half-truth. At home it is
being used to disparage our system of
government. Abroad it is being used to
explain any hesitation we may show in
joining a system of world security. The
Senate of the United States, it is said,
cannot be relied upon.
As I see it, the responsibility for the
rejection of the League of Nations does
not belong solely to the Senate. The
American people must share that
responsibility. The perfectionists among the
liberals, quite as much as the reactionaries,
contributed to our failure. One has
merely to read again what was said a
generation ago by our liberal press. Few
people were against a league. But they
did not like this league, nor did they like
the other fellow's league. All of
them seemed to want a league which
suited them. The Senate of the United
States has, I believe, been unjustly
maligned.
The responsibility that I would attach
to this body is that, in rejecting the
League of Nations, it did not suggest
some alternative method of establishing
and maintaining order in the world.
Negation is not enough for this
aggressive and restless world. As the poet
says, a world is dying and another world
is struggling to be born, and the job of
creating that new world belongs as much
to the Senate as to any other agency in
the entire world. We shall be negative
again at our own peril, and we shall
in¬vite the same travail and tribulation
which has kept all mankind in agony for
5 long and terrible years. In peace, as
well as in war, victory will not come to
the negative, defensive strategy. A certain
boldness, a positive resourcefulness,
is essential to win any battle in war or
peace. General Patton, General
Eisenhower, General Hodges, and Admiral
Nimitz are proving that today.
Under our Constitution this body has
the right, and the duty, to advise the
Executive on matters of foreign policy.
If it cannot consent to the measures
presented by the Executive it seems to
me imperative that it offer our Nation
and the world an alternative. If it feels
inadequate to this task, then certainly
it should proceed immediately to accede
to the rising demand of the people, that
the House of Representatives be given a
part in this responsibility. It is very
unbecoming of the Senate to act the part
of the dog in the manger.
I am sure that some will say that we
must rely upon the State Department
to formulate our foreign policy. I do
not think we can afford to entrust this
function exclusively to the State
Department. In the first place, it is no
longer possible to separate foreign from
domestic policy. The two are much too
closely intertwined, too interdependent,
to be regarded as unrelated and
separate problems. I know that the welfare
of the cotton farmers in Arkansas is
directly, and inevitably, dependent upon
the maintenance of a free flow of
international commerce. When that flow is
interrupted by war, as at present, or by
a short-sighted tariff like the
Smoot- Hawley measure, then we become
involved with huge, unmanageable
surpluses and such makeshifts as subsidies
and loans to cotton producers. No; I
do not think a few polished and
cultured gentlemen, in the dark and
dignified recesses of the State Department
should be entrusted, exclusively, with the
formulation of our foreign policy. I
hasten to add that I am encouraged by
the recent infusion of new blood into
the Department and by the favorable
reports of the work of Assistant
Secretaries Rockefeller and Clayton at Mexico
City. Improvement has been made, but
much remains to be done.
Our long-range policy, if we are to
have one, must be based upon a sound
appraisal of the true interests of this
Nation as a whole. There is a
tendency, on the part of professional
diplomats, to become ultracynical and to
reduce all human interests and desires to
the single element of material power.
Being detached from the everyday life
of our citizens, they forget that many
people, in fact, I think the majority,
would prefer to live in peace with their
children, at home, than to have all the
money, power, and glory in the world.
I am confident that the representatives
of the people in this body, and in the
House of Representatives, can much
more accurately evaluate the true
desires and interests of our people than
can the traditional diplomat who, in the
nature of things, is isolated from the
common man.
I intend no reflection upon the
character of any man in our executive
department; but it is inherent in their
background and their position, that they
be ultra conservative and reluctant to
commit our people to any change in the
status quo or to the assumption of any
new responsibilities. Only recently we
have had an example where the
participation of the distinguished senior
Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] and
the distinguished senior Senator from
Vermont [Mr. AUSTIN] added backbone
and courage to the decisions of our
representatives at Mexico City. I should
like to read at this point from an
editorial in the Washington Post of March
6, describing the part played by these gentlemen:
SENATORIAL COOPERATION
MEXICO CITY, Monday, March 5.—The Job of
advising and consenting, which Is the
Senate's prerogative in our treaty relations with
the world, has been given a new definition at
Mexico City. Hitherto the initiative in
treaty making has been retained by the
Executive. All Presidents have been jealous
of it. But at Mexico City Senator AUSTIN
took the ball as soon as he arrived here, and
we were treated to the spectacle of a Senator
determining the administration's approach to
the continental security pact, and an
opposition Senator at that. It was the earnest
and disinterested Vermonter who framed the
formula on which action was taken Saturday
at Mexico City. Senator CONNALLY made
senatorial Intervention complete by adding
to the declaration what might be called the
Connally reservation. Not the slightest
resentment has been caused by this senatorial
intervention; indeed, it has been welcomed,
for, as Assistant Secretary Rockefeller says,
"The administration wants to know what it
can deliver to our Latin-American friends."
Senator AUSTIN'S work Is especially the object
of comprehensive compliments.
Senators with the experience and
confidence in their understanding of their
people, such as these Senators
undoubtedly have, naturally tend to be
courageous and bold in their approach to
matters of vital interest to their people. To
them diplomacy is not merely a game of
chess to be played by skillful maneuvers
and double talk. They know the very
lives of their people are involved, and
they are not afraid to take risks to
protect them.

(Not printed at Government expense)
United States of America
Congressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
American Foreign Policy—International
Organization for World Security
SPEECH OF HON. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT
OF ARKANSAS
IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES
Wednesday, March 28, 1945
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
myths are one of the greatest obstacles
in the formulation of national policy. A
myth of some plausibility is being currently
revived at the expenses of this
Senate. The Senate is being held solely
responsible for the failure of the United
States to join the League of Nations.
This myth is a half-truth, and a very
dangerous half-truth. At home it is
being used to disparage our system of
government. Abroad it is being used to
explain any hesitation we may show in
joining a system of world security. The
Senate of the United States, it is said,
cannot be relied upon.
As I see it, the responsibility for the
rejection of the League of Nations does
not belong solely to the Senate. The
American people must share that
responsibility. The perfectionists among the
liberals, quite as much as the reactionaries,
contributed to our failure. One has
merely to read again what was said a
generation ago by our liberal press. Few
people were against a league. But they
did not like this league, nor did they like
the other fellow's league. All of
them seemed to want a league which
suited them. The Senate of the United
States has, I believe, been unjustly
maligned.
The responsibility that I would attach
to this body is that, in rejecting the
League of Nations, it did not suggest
some alternative method of establishing
and maintaining order in the world.
Negation is not enough for this
aggressive and restless world. As the poet
says, a world is dying and another world
is struggling to be born, and the job of
creating that new world belongs as much
to the Senate as to any other agency in
the entire world. We shall be negative
again at our own peril, and we shall
in¬vite the same travail and tribulation
which has kept all mankind in agony for
5 long and terrible years. In peace, as
well as in war, victory will not come to
the negative, defensive strategy. A certain
boldness, a positive resourcefulness,
is essential to win any battle in war or
peace. General Patton, General
Eisenhower, General Hodges, and Admiral
Nimitz are proving that today.
Under our Constitution this body has
the right, and the duty, to advise the
Executive on matters of foreign policy.
If it cannot consent to the measures
presented by the Executive it seems to
me imperative that it offer our Nation
and the world an alternative. If it feels
inadequate to this task, then certainly
it should proceed immediately to accede
to the rising demand of the people, that
the House of Representatives be given a
part in this responsibility. It is very
unbecoming of the Senate to act the part
of the dog in the manger.
I am sure that some will say that we
must rely upon the State Department
to formulate our foreign policy. I do
not think we can afford to entrust this
function exclusively to the State
Department. In the first place, it is no
longer possible to separate foreign from
domestic policy. The two are much too
closely intertwined, too interdependent,
to be regarded as unrelated and
separate problems. I know that the welfare
of the cotton farmers in Arkansas is
directly, and inevitably, dependent upon
the maintenance of a free flow of
international commerce. When that flow is
interrupted by war, as at present, or by
a short-sighted tariff like the
Smoot- Hawley measure, then we become
involved with huge, unmanageable
surpluses and such makeshifts as subsidies
and loans to cotton producers. No; I
do not think a few polished and
cultured gentlemen, in the dark and
dignified recesses of the State Department
should be entrusted, exclusively, with the
formulation of our foreign policy. I
hasten to add that I am encouraged by
the recent infusion of new blood into
the Department and by the favorable
reports of the work of Assistant
Secretaries Rockefeller and Clayton at Mexico
City. Improvement has been made, but
much remains to be done.
Our long-range policy, if we are to
have one, must be based upon a sound
appraisal of the true interests of this
Nation as a whole. There is a
tendency, on the part of professional
diplomats, to become ultracynical and to
reduce all human interests and desires to
the single element of material power.
Being detached from the everyday life
of our citizens, they forget that many
people, in fact, I think the majority,
would prefer to live in peace with their
children, at home, than to have all the
money, power, and glory in the world.
I am confident that the representatives
of the people in this body, and in the
House of Representatives, can much
more accurately evaluate the true
desires and interests of our people than
can the traditional diplomat who, in the
nature of things, is isolated from the
common man.
I intend no reflection upon the
character of any man in our executive
department; but it is inherent in their
background and their position, that they
be ultra conservative and reluctant to
commit our people to any change in the
status quo or to the assumption of any
new responsibilities. Only recently we
have had an example where the
participation of the distinguished senior
Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] and
the distinguished senior Senator from
Vermont [Mr. AUSTIN] added backbone
and courage to the decisions of our
representatives at Mexico City. I should
like to read at this point from an
editorial in the Washington Post of March
6, describing the part played by these gentlemen:
SENATORIAL COOPERATION
MEXICO CITY, Monday, March 5.—The Job of
advising and consenting, which Is the
Senate's prerogative in our treaty relations with
the world, has been given a new definition at
Mexico City. Hitherto the initiative in
treaty making has been retained by the
Executive. All Presidents have been jealous
of it. But at Mexico City Senator AUSTIN
took the ball as soon as he arrived here, and
we were treated to the spectacle of a Senator
determining the administration's approach to
the continental security pact, and an
opposition Senator at that. It was the earnest
and disinterested Vermonter who framed the
formula on which action was taken Saturday
at Mexico City. Senator CONNALLY made
senatorial Intervention complete by adding
to the declaration what might be called the
Connally reservation. Not the slightest
resentment has been caused by this senatorial
intervention; indeed, it has been welcomed,
for, as Assistant Secretary Rockefeller says,
"The administration wants to know what it
can deliver to our Latin-American friends."
Senator AUSTIN'S work Is especially the object
of comprehensive compliments.
Senators with the experience and
confidence in their understanding of their
people, such as these Senators
undoubtedly have, naturally tend to be
courageous and bold in their approach to
matters of vital interest to their people. To
them diplomacy is not merely a game of
chess to be played by skillful maneuvers
and double talk. They know the very
lives of their people are involved, and
they are not afraid to take risks to
protect them.

Add tags for American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security

Post a Comment for American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security
American Foreign Policy - International Organization for World Security